tigger wrote:quote I left his firm in pure Carter-Ruck circumstances. Heinemann, for whom we acted, was publishing a book about the Ford family, by Robert Lacey. I was told by Carter-Ruck that there was no conflict in our advising. Lacey sent part of the book to Henry Ford for comment. Later I found Carter-Ruck advising Ford that the book was full of libel. He proved unable to give a truthful explanation. unquote

I was under the impression that this is not only unethical but unlawful. Hmm.

In the centre of Hereford is the Old House. In it is a 17th century wallpainting of two farmers, pulling at either end of a cow. The lawyer is sitting in the middle, milking it. Next time I'm there, I should send a postcard of this image to CR, they could clearly use it for their letterhead imo.

Tigger, I am sure that all this would be of interest to TB.

I think he already knows, I have read this article before but it was good to refresh my memory! I got the better of a couple of solicitors in my time. The greatest nightmare of a solicitor is someone who replies in person instead of having them hire their own solicitor.On that count alone, TB is a thorn in the flesh of CR. No barrister to correspond with CR, just TB.

Tuesday, 8 January 2013McCann v Bennett: New Court date for February 2013Confirmed dates: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013.

The hearing is not a libel trial; it's merely to determine whether Tony Bennett has been found guilty of contempt of court. However, according to Mr Bennett it seems that Mr Justice Tugendhat has suggested that the hearing should consider whether there should be a full libel trial to follow.

Derek Jameson, as a tabloid editor, had been unwisely advised to sue the BBC over a satirical sketch. Carter-Ruck said Jameson would get £25,000-£50,000. David Eady QC advised Carter-Ruck in writing that Jameson accept the £10 that the BBC had offered in settlement plus his costs. Carter-Ruck concealed this opinion from Jameson. Jameson lost the case and was sent a bill by Carter Ruck for £41,342.50. When he learned by chance of the QC's pessimistic advice, Carter-Ruck told him a string of lies.

Well imo if they will do that to a well known celebrity they could to it to anyone, what could they do if given the chance to the McCanns with all that fund money at their disposal. Ive said for along time that if the fund runs out then all their help goes with it, imo this is what has kept the wolf from the door and also kept the PJ at arms length because they couldn't afford to take on the big money fund and the CR backing of the McCanns.....but the fund is supposedly nearly gone!!!!!......Saying that tho Kate did say that CR are working for free most of the time, so lets see what the future holds when there is no £millon + been thrown in to the ring by the McCanns

Derek Jameson, as a tabloid editor, had been unwisely advised to sue the BBC over a satirical sketch. Carter-Ruck said Jameson would get £25,000-£50,000. David Eady QC advised Carter-Ruck in writing that Jameson accept the £10 that the BBC had offered in settlement plus his costs. Carter-Ruck concealed this opinion from Jameson. Jameson lost the case and was sent a bill by Carter Ruck for £41,342.50. When he learned by chance of the QC's pessimistic advice, Carter-Ruck told him a string of lies.

Well imo if they will do that to a well known celebrity they could to it to anyone, what could they do if given the chance to the McCanns with all that fund money at their disposal. Ive said for along time that if the fund runs out then all their help goes with it, imo this is what has kept the wolf from the door and also kept the PJ at arms length because they couldn't afford to take on the big money fund and the CR backing of the McCanns.....but the fund is supposedly nearly gone!!!!!......Saying that tho Kate did say that CR are working for free most of the time, so lets see what the future holds when there is no £millon + been thrown in to the ring by the McCanns

CR have been working on a retainer, so it follows that it's a nice little earner the longer it goes on. It would certainly be in keeping with what I know and have experienced of lawyers that they will string a case out for years and then advise the client to settle for peanuts.Laywers working for free and behind the scenes for the McCanns - as Kate wrote in her book - don't seem to include CR. Where will that 175.000 (charges to date) turn up in the accounts?

'It started as a private matter but because of allegations, that I won't repeat, it reflected on me in office'

Who was involved: Norman Lamont, the former Chancellor; Peter Carter-Ruck, a libel lawyer; sundry Treasury officials; an anonymous benefactor.

What happened: When the then Chancellor evicted his unwelcome tenant, Sara Dale, from his Kensington home (see Number 2 above), he employed the services of Peter Carter-Ruck, the leading solicitor. In late 1992 it emerged from official documents that the bill for this work amounted to more than pounds 23,000, and that pounds 4,700 of this had been met from public funds, with the balance coming from an unidentified benefactor through Conservative party channels. Mr Lamont said: "These costs arose solely because of my public position as Chancellor of the Exchequer. None of the costs incurred in evicting my tenant were met from public funds.". The outcome Two Commons committees investigated these matters, and Mr Lamont was ruled to have been "unwise" in accepting the anonymous money.

----

17: Gary Waller Jan 94

'The truth is, his story doesn't add up and he has told a string of lies'

What happened: Mr Waller was forced to admit fathering a love child six years earlier by Fay Stockwell. He had previously vehemently denied allegations made by the People and threatened legal action against the newspaper. His live-in girlfriend and reasearcher, Jane Thomson, revealed he had hidden his affair with Ms Stockwell for six years.

The outcome: The matter was largely ignored, lost in the slipstream of all the other scandals emerging at the time. Libel specialists Peter Carter-Ruck, who had issued two strongly-worded statements on behalf of Mr Waller, were embarrassed. A source at the law firm reportedly said: "Now we know Mr Waller wasn't telling the truth. We wouldn't act for him again."

Street's Ken owes £600,000by MARK REYNOLDS, Daily MailComments (0) Share Street star Bill RoacheCoronation Street actor Bill Roache is in debt to the tune of more than half a million pounds, it emerged yesterday.The 69-year-old star, who has played Ken Barlow since the ITV soap began 40 years ago, has been fighting spiralling financial difficulties for a number of years.But the sheer scale of the amount he owes to creditors stunned his colleagues in the showbusiness industry when details were revealed at a court hearing yesterday.'We knew Bill had debts but I think it's fair to say few people knew just how big they apparently are,' said one television insider.The firm representing his various creditors revealed that the actor - whose problems began when he was ordered to pay legal costs against a national newspaper despite winning a libel case - now has debts amounting to approximately £600,000.At Crewe county court, in Cheshire, an application for Roache - who earns more than £160,000 a year - to pay more to clear the debts was adjourned until next Thursday.The stress of the occasion was clearly too much for his wife Sara, who attacked a television cameraman as she left the court.Shouting obscenities, Mrs Roache - who is also her husband's business manager - ran at Carlton Central television's Malcolm Powell as he filmed the couple leaving the court building.She was then caught on camera trying to hit him on his back and head with a red plastic file.Whilst her husband looked on, apparently embarrassed, Mrs Roache then lashed out at a freelance reporter.The whole incident was later relayed on ITV News.Mr Roache was first declared bankrupt in 1999 with debts of around £300,000.His difficulties began some eight years earlier when he was forced to pay huge legal costs despite winning a libel claim against The Sun newspaper, which had branded him 'boring', smug and disliked by his colleagues.He was awarded £50,000 in damages. However, because the figure was exactly the same amount that the paper had earlier offered him in an out- of-court settlement, he subsequently had to meet legal costs of around £120,000.Further financial catastrophe followed when the actor - the only surviving member of the original Coronation Street cast - then tried to sue his solicitors, Peter Carter-Ruck and Partners, claiming they had failed to fully warn him about the risks of pressing on with the libel case.After losing this later case, he was then left with yet another huge, but undisclosed, legal bill.A spokesman for PricewaterhouseCoopers, the accountancy firm acting for Mr Roache's creditors, has applied for an income payment order against the star. But a spokesman for the company last night refused to disclose exactly how much the actor was currently paying to clear the debts.'Mr Roache owes about £600,000 and he is bankrupt. We have made an application for an income payment order to see whether Mr Roache can make further payments from his income,' he said.The creditors are understood to include the Inland Revenue.In addition to the pressures of the ongoing legal process, Mr Roache is also among a group of actors on the popular soap currently fighting a move by Granada television to cut their wages by up to a third.

Church Of Scientology's 'heretic': How Marty Rathbun became the arch-enemy of L Ron Hubbard devotees

For 27 years, Marty Rathbun was a key player in the world's most secretive religion – even mentoring top celebrities including Tom Cruise. Then he left, and things turned ugly...

.....In March, I contacted the Church's PR department to inform them that I was writing a profile of Marty, and asking if they would like to respond to criticisms he had made of them. I also sought to check a few points of fact. They asked me to submit questions via e-mail. A few days later, their response arrived. It covered 15 pages. A second letter arrived at The Independent's offices in London the following day, from the Church's British lawyers, Carter-Ruck.

Trafigura and Carter-Ruck end attempt to gag press freedom after Twitter uprising

An attempt by the oil firm Trafigura to prevent the British press from reporting on the activities of parliament has been abandoned, after an uprising by users of Twitter.

The Guardian this afternoon said that the law firm Carter-Ruck had ended its bid to ban the newspaper from publishing a parliamentary question about its client, one of the largest oil trading companies in the world. Trafigura had obtained a gagging order preventing any details of the question posed by Paul Farrelly MP being made public last night, even though it is visible on the House of Commons website.

....Twitter users toasted Carter-Ruck's climb-down as a victory for the principle of press liberty. "Hurrah for free speech and freedom of information... don't mess with the people," wrote the_name_is_in a typical tweet.

Carter-Ruck, the solicitors who specialise in sueing the media, have partially backed down in their efforts, on behalf of a client who could not be named for legal reasons, to stop all reporting of issues which could not be disclosed – including a Parliamentary question. The Guardian – which, like the FT and others, had been gagged by legal proceedings we were not allowed to identify – was due to challenge the case in court when Carter-Ruck agreed to modify the restrictions.

Let’s hope Jack Straw, secretary of state for justice, listens: the trend towards ever-wider gagging orders gives big companies and the rich and powerful yet another way to strangle investigative journalism – as if the overly-restrictive libel and confidentiality laws were not bad enough.

I really dont understand all this banning things from coming out and injunctions, one rule for the rich and one rule for the rest of us it seems. What has happened to honest open transparency I wonder. And if the question was on the website any way what was the point of trying to get it gagged in order to try and prevent the public from knowing about it.

jd16 wrote:Church Of Scientology's 'heretic': How Marty Rathbun became the arch-enemy of L Ron Hubbard devotees

For 27 years, Marty Rathbun was a key player in the world's most secretive religion – even mentoring top celebrities including Tom Cruise. Then he left, and things turned ugly...

.....In March, I contacted the Church's PR department to inform them that I was writing a profile of Marty, and asking if they would like to respond to criticisms he had made of them. I also sought to check a few points of fact. They asked me to submit questions via e-mail. A few days later, their response arrived. It covered 15 pages. A second letter arrived at The Independent's offices in London the following day, from the Church's British lawyers, Carter-Ruck.

If there is anyone I truly admire and respect it is Katie Holmes with her strength and courage to get out of carter rucks clients "Church Of Scientology"...this is one very very very sick and perverse (in every sense of the word) cult. Katie is a shining example of how to look after your kids, risking her own life for her daughter, unike the mccanns who used their child to make themselves VIP millionaires at every single opportunity. kate mccann, look at your namesake and learn, be very ashamed how you behaved compared to her

The "Church Of Scientology" will deny all claims as is expected, but deny all you like, anyone with a brain cell know exactly what it is about

Anyone who has watched the videos of Tom Cruise promoting the "Church Of Scientology" will understand what I am saying...if I've ever seen a demon possessed this was it

Tom Cruise's 'wife auditions': Top female stars took screen tests that were actually intended to pick new partner, claims new Scientology book

A controversial new book claims that Scarlett Johansson, Jessica Alba, Lindsay Lohan and Kate Bosworth were 'auditioned' to be Tom Cruise's wifeHe eventually settled upon Katie Holmes in 2005According to 'Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood and the Prison Belief', Cruise also harbored political ambitions toward the White House

The Church of Scientology has vehemently denied claims made in a sensational new book that Tom Cruise auditioned a host of Hollywood beauties including Scarlett Johansson, Jessica Alba, Lindsay Lohan and Kate Bosworth to be his wife before settling on Katie Holmes.Allegedly disappointed by his split from Oscar-winning actress Penelope Cruz in 2004 after she failed to embrace Scientology, Cruise, 50, allowed senior members of the church to summon the unwitting stars to read for a non-existent part in the 'Mission: Impossible' series.According to 'Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood and the Prison Belief', the Top Gun star initiated the unusual casting couch-style marriage interviews after a complaint to his sister at a Scientology church opening in Madrid that no one had been able to find him a new girlfriend.

The Hollywood mega-star also allegedly made the same complaint to Scientologist leader and his best friend David Miscavige after his three year relationship with Cruz ended, who according to the book wasted no time in beginning the search for a suitable Mrs. Cruise.Lawyers for Tom Cruise have vehemently insisted that no such conversations ever occurred while he was in Spain.

However, the tell-all book, penned by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Lawrence Wright, alleges that Scientologist matchmakers arranged for 'auditions' at the organisation's Celebrity Center in Los Angeles and invited the bevy of what were young and promising actresses.The book claims that each of the girls including hell-raiser Lohan, who was 18 in 2004, Alba, who is now happily married with two children and Johansson, were not chosen and in 2005 Cruise instead met Katie Holmes and then infamously jumped on Oprah Winfrey's couch.

Holmes, who is now 34, split from Tom cruise in 2012 and took primary custody of their child, Suri.The book also claims that prior to the auditions of the would-be stars, Cruise was hooked up with British-Iranian actress Nazanin Boniadi, who is now 32.Vanity Fair magazine's special correspondent Maureen Orth reported that Shelly Miscavige, the wife of David Miscavige was part of the search to find Tom Cruise a suitable girlfriend.

The magazine contended that Boniadi was convinced by Scientology leaders that she had been selected for a project that would help further her religion and would lead to her meeting 'world leaders' and having an influential role in the church.Allegedly, top Scientology official Greg Wilhere told the actress to darken her hair, remove her orthodontic braces and that she break up with her long term boyfriend, who was also part of the controversial religion and with whom she was reportedly deeply in love.When she refused to do that, Wilhere allegedly showed Boniadi evidence that her boyfriend had cheated on her and that led her to break up their relationship

She was flown to New York to meet Cruise and he swept her off her feet with an amazing series of dates that included visits to the Empire State Building, dinner at Nobu, skating at the Rockefeller Center and nights spent at the Trump Tower.In fact, she so impressed Cruise that he asked her to sign a nondisclosure agreement, which is generally acknowledged to be a sign that the actor is keen to persue the relationship and make it serious.Tommy Davis, a Scientology executive, told Boniadi that her new life with Cruise was all about keeping him happy.'Davis warned her that if she did anything to upset Cruise, he would personally destroy her,' the book reported. 'Davis and (Scientology official) Jessica Feshback were constantly tutoring her in how to behave toward the star.'

However, the pairing did not work out and Feshback is said to have ordered Boniadi to pack her belongings and leave Cruise's home.She is said to have last seen the Hollywood actor working out in his home gym and has never heard from him again.And when she confessed her love for Cruise to another Scientologist, the church sent her to Clearwater in Florida and asked her to scrub public toilets with a toothbrush, the book reported.The church has denied all allegations of cruelty towards Boniadi for speaking to anyone about Tom Cruise.The reason for the unusual auditions organised by the Church of Sceintology stem from their interest in keeping their best known member happy.He is also a huge donor to the religion, reportedly handing over $3 million in 2004 alone.

Before his marriage to Holmes, Cruise and Miscavige harbored political ambitions for the actor, alleges the book.'If f******g Arnold (Schwarzenegger) can be governor, I could be President,' said Cruise.'Well, absolutely, Tom,' replied Miscavige.Lawyers for Cruise have denied that converstaion ever took place.The book also details Cruise's failed attempts to try and recruit Steven Spielberg into the Scientology fold after the Oscar winning director cast the actor in 'War of the Worlds'.However, Cruise became angered after her learnt of a conversation between Spielberg and Paul Haggis, the director of the Oscar winning movie 'Crash'.

'I've met all these Scientologists, and they seem like the nicest people,' Spielberg is alleged to have said reports the New York Daily News.'Yea, we keep all the evil ones in the closet,' replied Haggis, who at the time was a Scientologist before leaving the church in 2009.Haggis says that he was called in by the church executives for a dressing down over the remarks and ordered to write a letter of apology to Cruise.When his first draft was rejected, Haggis was made to write an even more contrite letter to Tom Cruise.A Spielberg publicist said the director doesn’t recall the brief exchange with Haggis, and Cruise’s lawyer said the actor does not remember the incident.

I know somebody who have met Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, few times... who says Katie is a very nice person.. and Tom... well ..how he treated Katie etc. ..it would be libel I think to repeat it here. Good for Katie to break out of it all.

I've yet to see the McCanns actually sue anyone in court. The tactics are always the same - bully the opposition into submission with the threat of horrendous costs and if possible, use every dirty trick in the book to undermine the opponent's financial position. In this respect it's interesting to follow the developments in the McCann vs Bennett case in which the plaintiffs desire to avoid a fully-fledged libel process and by implication, being cross-examined under oath is reaching farcical proportions; ditto McCann vs Amaral. IMO the big fear is that even if UK media reporting with respect to the McCanns is restricted by super injunctions - nothing could stop the reporting of court proceedings. In this regard, what happens in an English courtroom is a far greater danger for the McCanns than any proceedings in Portugal.

T4two wrote:I've yet to see the McCanns actually sue anyone in court. The tactics are always the same - bully the opposition into submission with the threat of horrendous costs and if possible, use every dirty trick in the book to undermine the opponent's financial position. In this respect it's interesting to follow the developments in the McCann vs Bennett case in which the plaintiffs desire to avoid a fully-fledged libel process and by implication, being cross-examined under oath is reaching farcical proportions; ditto McCann vs Amaral. IMO the big fear is that even if UK media reporting with respect to the McCanns is restricted by super injunctions - nothing could stop the reporting of court proceedings. In this regard, what happens in an English courtroom is a far greater danger for the McCanns than any proceedings in Portugal.